Evaluation of the Utility of Screening Mammography for High-Risk Women Undergoing Screening Breast MR Imaging

Hereditary Breast Cancer: BRCA Mutations and Beyond

Hereditary breast cancers are manifested by pathogenic and likely pathogenic genetic mutations. Penetrance expresses the breast cancer risk associated with these genetic mutations. Although BRCA1/2 are the most widely known genetic mutations associated with breast cancer, numerous additional genes demonstrate high and moderate penetrance for breast cancer. This review describes current genetic testing, details the specific high and moderate penetrance genes for breast cancer and reviews the current approach to screening for breast cancer in patients with these genetic mutations.

Awareness, Knowledge, and Current Practice of Breast Cancer Among Surgeons in Jordan

PURPOSE

Breast cancer (BC) is the most prevalent cancer in Jordan. De-escalation in treatment reflects a paradigm shift in BC treatment. More tailored strategies and the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach are essential to apply recent changes in management. In the era of breast surgery fellowship, adopting well-structured training is essential to apply recent therapeutic guidelines and meet patients' expectations.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study using a customized, self-reported questionnaire was used. Data collection occurred anonymously using a link via WhatsApp in the period between February 2023 and April 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 89 surgeons were involved in this study, and only 14 (15.7%) completed a subspecialty in breast surgery. About 58.4% considered the age of 40 years as the starting point for screening, and 84.3% reported that mammogram screening is associated with improved BC survival. Only 10.1% and 28.1% acknowledged the applicability of both tomosynthesis and breast magnetic resonance imaging in screening, respectively. A significant difference in the mean knowledge score about BC is observed between general surgeon and those with subspecialty. Varying levels of awareness concerning different risk factors and their correlation with the likelihood of BC occurrence observed. Although 56.2% of participants could offer breast conserving surgery and consider it oncological safe, only 48.3% defined it correctly. Of the participants, 61.8% and 76.4% stated that sentinel lymph node biopsy can be safely applied in clinically negative or suspicious axillary nodes, respectively, with <50% of surgeon performing it in their practice.

CONCLUSION

More efforts are required to enhance the knowledge and practice of surgeons in the field of breast surgery. Adopting national guidelines can facilitate the acceptance and improvement of current practices among surgeons in Jordan.

Decoding the Prevalent High-Risk Breast Cancers: Demographics, Pathological, Imaging Insights, and Long-Term Outcome

Objective: To investigate the features and outcomes of breast cancer in high-risk subgroups. Materials and Methods: REB approved an observational study of women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2010 to 2019. Three radiologists, using the BI-RADS lexicon, blindly reviewed mammogram and MRI screenings without a washout period. Consensus was reached with 2 additional reviewers. Inter-rater agreement was measured by Fleiss Kappa. Statistical analysis included Mann-Whitney U, Chi-square tests for cohort analysis, and Kaplan-Meier for survival rates, with a Cox model for comparative analysis using gene mutation as a reference. Results: The study included 140 high-risk women, finding 155 malignant lesions. Significant age differences noted: chest radiation therapy (median age 44, IQR: 37.0-46.2), gene mutation (median age 49, IQR: 39.8-58.0), and familial risk (median age 51, IQR: 44.5-56.0) (P = .007). Gene mutation carriers had smaller (P = .01), higher-grade tumours (P = .002), and more triple-negative ER- (P = .02), PR- (P = .002), and HER2- (P = .02) cases. MRI outperformed mammography in all subgroups. Substantial to near-perfect inter-rater agreement observed. Over 10 years, no deaths occurred in chest radiation group, with no significant survival difference between gene mutation and familial risk groups, HR = 0.93 (95% CI: 0.27, 3.26), P = .92. Conclusion: The study highlights the importance of age and specific tumour characteristics in identifying high-risk breast cancer subgroups. MRI is confirmed as an effective screening tool. Despite the aggressive nature of cancers in gene mutation carriers, early detection is crucial for survival outcomes. These insights, while necessitating further validation with larger studies, advocate for a move toward personalized medical care, strengthening the existing healthcare guidelines.

Status of breast cancer detection in young women and potential of liquid biopsy

Young onset breast cancer (YOBC) is an increasing demographic with unique biology, limited screening, and poor outcomes. Further, women with postpartum breast cancers (PPBCs), cancers occurring up to 10 years after childbirth, have worse outcomes than other young breast cancer patients matched for tumor stage and subtype. Early-stage detection of YOBC is critical for improving outcomes. However, most young women (under 45) do not meet current age guidelines for routine mammographic screening and are thus an underserved population. Other challenges to early detection in this population include reduced performance of standard of care mammography and reduced awareness. Women often face significant barriers in accessing health care during the postpartum period and disadvantaged communities face compounding barriers due to systemic health care inequities. Blood tests and liquid biopsies targeting early detection may provide an attractive option to help address these challenges. Test development in this area includes understanding of the unique biology involved in YOBC and in particular PPBCs that tend to be more aggressive and deadly. In this review, we will present the status of breast cancer screening and detection in young women, provide a summary of some unique biological features of YOBC, and discuss the potential for blood tests and liquid biopsy platforms to address current shortcomings in timely, equitable detection.

Screening in Women With BRCA Mutations Revisited

Patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations are at high risk for the development of breast cancer. This article reviews the current evidence for breast cancer screening of patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic gene mutations if they have not undergone prophylactic mastectomy. It will review the current evidence-based imaging recommendations for different modalities and ages of screening initiation in screening this patient population at high risk. Special considerations in transgender BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are also discussed.

Clinical and Imaging Features of MRI Screen-Detected Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Supplemental screening with breast MRI is recommended annually for patients who have greater than 20% lifetime risk for breast cancer. While there is robust data regarding features of mammographic screen-detected breast cancers, there is limited data regarding MRI-screen-detected cancers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Screening breast MRIs performed between August 1, 2016 and July 30, 2022 identified 50 screen-detected breast cancers in 47 patients. Clinical and imaging features of all eligible cancers were recorded.

RESULTS

During the study period, 50 MRI-screen detected cancers were identified in 47 patients. The majority of MRI-screen detected cancers (32/50, 64%) were invasive. Pathology revealed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in 36% (18/50), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 52% (26/50), invasive lobular carcinoma in 10% (5/50), and angiosarcoma in 2% (1/50). The majority of patients (43/47, 91%) were stage 0 or 1 at diagnosis and there were no breast cancer-related deaths during the follow-up periods. Cancers presented as masses in 50% (25/50), nonmass enhancement in 48% (25/50), and a focus in 2% (1/50). DCIS was more likely to present as nonmass enhancement (94.4%, 17/18), whereas invasive cancers were more likely to present as masses (75%, 24/32) (P < .001). All cancers that were stage 2 at diagnosis were detected either on a baseline exam or more than 4 years since the prior MRI exam.

CONCLUSION

MRI screen-detected breast cancers were most often invasive cancers. Cancers detected by MRI screening had an excellent prognosis in our study population. Invasive cancers most commonly presented as a mass.

Comparing the performance of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the post-treatment surveillance of patients with a history of breast cancer: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of our study was to compare the performance of 2D (FFDM) against 3D (FFDM plus DBT) examinations in the post-treatment surveillance of asymptomatic breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

A list of women with a history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography (2D or 3D) from 5/2017 to 5/2020 was retrieved. A total of 20,210 examinations were identified and performance metrics were compared.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate (CDR) (p = 0.38), recall rate (RR) (p = 0.087), or positive predictive value (PPV) (p = 0.74) between 2D vs. 3D examinations. Stratification by breast tissue identified no statistically significant difference in CDR (p = 0.581 and p = 0.428), RR (p = 0.230 and p = 0.205), or PPV (p = 0.908 and p = 0.721) between fatty/scattered and heterogeneous/extremely dense breast tissue when comparing 2D vs 3D examinations. Stratification by age did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased with 2D vs. 3D examinations in the 60-69 years group (p = 0.021). Stratification by race did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased with 3D vs. 2D examinations in white women (p = 0.036). Stratification by laterality (bilateral vs. unilateral post mastectomy) did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased in 2D vs. 3D examinations in unilateral studies (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

For asymptomatic women with a history of breast cancer, there is no evidence that the addition of DBT to FFDM improves CDR, RR, or PPV.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

More studies are needed concerning screening methodologies supplementing FFDM in the screening regimens of breast cancer survivors.

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR

Early detection decreases breast cancer death. The ACR recommends annual screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier and/or more intensive screening for women at higher-than-average risk. For most women at higher-than-average risk, the supplemental screening method of choice is breast MRI. Women with genetics-based increased risk, those with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more, and those exposed to chest radiation at young ages are recommended to undergo MRI surveillance starting at ages 25 to 30 and annual mammography (with a variable starting age between 25 and 40, depending on the type of risk). Mutation carriers can delay mammographic screening until age 40 if annual screening breast MRI is performed as recommended. Women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 or with personal histories of breast cancer and dense breasts should undergo annual supplemental breast MRI. Others with personal histories, and those with atypia at biopsy, should strongly consider MRI screening, especially if other risk factors are present. For women with dense breasts who desire supplemental screening, breast MRI is recommended. For those who qualify for but cannot undergo breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography or ultrasound could be considered. All women should undergo risk assessment by age 25, especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, so that those at higher-than-average risk can be identified and appropriate screening initiated.

Predictors of nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines in a United States urban comprehensive cancer center

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify predictors of nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines in an urban screening clinic among high- and average-risk women in the United States.

METHODS

We reviewed records of 6090 women who received ≥2 screening mammograms over 2 years at the Karmanos Cancer Institute to examine how breast cancer risk and breast density were associated with guideline-concordant screening. Incongruent screening was defined as receiving supplemental imaging between screening mammograms for average-risk women, and as not receiving recommended supplemental imaging for high-risk women. We used t-tests and chi-square tests to examine bivariate associations with guideline-congruent screening, and probit regression to regress guideline-congruence unto breast cancer risk, breast density, and their interaction, controlling for age and race.

RESULTS

Incongruent screening was more likely among high- versus average-risk women (97.7% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.01). Among average-risk women, incongruent screening was more likely among those with dense versus nondense breasts (2.0% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.01). Among high-risk women, incongruent screening was more likely among those with nondense versus dense breasts (99.5% vs. 95.2%, p < 0.01). The significant main effects of density and high-risk on increased incongruent screening were qualified by a density by high-risk interaction, showing a weaker association between risk and incongruent screening among women with dense breasts (simple slope = 3.71, p < 0.01) versus nondense breasts (simple slope = 5.79, p < 0.01). Age and race were not associated with incongruent screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of adherence to evidence-based screening guidelines has led to underutilization of supplementary imaging for high-risk women and potential overutilization for women with dense breasts without other risk factors.

'Earlier than Early' Detection of Breast Cancer in Israeli BRCA Mutation Carriers Applying AI-Based Analysis to Consecutive MRI Scans

Female BRCA1/BRCA2 (=BRCA) pathogenic variants (PVs) carriers are at a substantially higher risk for developing breast cancer (BC) compared with the average risk population. Detection of BC at an early stage significantly improves prognosis. To facilitate early BC detection, a surveillance scheme is offered to BRCA PV carriers from age 25-30 years that includes annual MRI based breast imaging. Indeed, adherence to the recommended scheme has been shown to be associated with earlier disease stages at BC diagnosis, more in-situ pathology, smaller tumors, and less axillary involvement. While MRI is the most sensitive modality for BC detection in BRCA PV carriers, there are a significant number of overlooked or misinterpreted radiological lesions (mostly enhancing foci), leading to a delayed BC diagnosis at a more advanced stage. In this study we developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-network, aimed at a more accurate classification of enhancing foci, in MRIs of BRCA PV carriers, thus reducing false-negative interpretations. Retrospectively identified foci in prior MRIs that were either diagnosed as BC or benign/normal in a subsequent MRI were manually segmented and served as input for a convolutional network architecture. The model was successful in classification of 65% of the cancerous foci, most of them triple-negative BC. If validated, applying this scheme routinely may facilitate 'earlier than early' BC diagnosis in BRCA PV carriers.

Challenges and Changes of the Breast Cancer Screening Paradigm

Since four decades mammography is used for early breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women and still remains the gold standard imaging modality. However, population screening programs can be personalized and women can be divided into different groups based on risk factors and personal preferences. The availability of new and evolving imaging modalities, for example, digital breast tomosynthesis, dynamic-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), abbreviated MRI protocols, diffusion-weighted MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography leads to new challenges and perspectives regarding the feasibility and potential harms of breast cancer screening. The aim of this review is to discuss the current guidelines for different risk groups, to analyze the recent published studies about the diagnostic performance of the imaging modalities and to discuss new developments and future perspectives. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 6.

MRI Breast: Current Imaging Trends, Clinical Applications, and Future Research Directions

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive and advanced imaging technique in diagnosing breast cancer and is essential in improving cancer detection, lesion characterization, and determining therapy response. In addition to the dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) technique, functional techniques such as magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI), and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) further characterize and differentiate benign and malignant lesions thus, improving diagnostic accuracy. There is now an increasing clinical usage of MRI breast, including screening in high risk and supplementary screening tools in average-risk patients. MRI is becoming imperative in assisting breast surgeons in planning breast-conserving surgery for preoperative local staging and evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response. Other clinical applications for MRI breast include occult breast cancer detection, investigation of nipple discharge, and breast implant assessment. There is now an abundance of research publications on MRI Breast with several areas that still remain to be explored. This review gives a comprehensive overview of the clinical trends of MRI breast with emphasis on imaging features and interpretation using conventional and advanced techniques. In addition, future research areas in MRI breast include developing techniques to make MRI more accessible and costeffective for screening. The abbreviated MRI breast procedure and an area of focused research in the enhancement of radiologists' work with artificial intelligence have high impact for the future in MRI Breast.

The yield and effectiveness of breast cancer surveillance in women with PTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Women with PTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome (PHTS) are offered breast cancer (BC) surveillance because of an increased BC lifetime risk. Surveillance guidelines are, however, expert opinion-based because of a lack of data. We aimed to assess the yield and effectiveness of BC surveillance and the prevalence and type of breast disease in women with PHTS.

METHODS

Sixty-five women with PHTS who visited our center between 2001 and 2021 were included. Surveillance consisted of annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography from ages 25 and 30 years, respectively.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine women enrolled in the BC surveillance program (median age at first examination, 38 years [range, 24-70]) and underwent 156 surveillance rounds. Surveillance led to detection of BC in 7/39 women (cancer detection rate [CDR], 45/1000 rounds) and benign breast lesions (BBLs) in 11/39 women. Overall sensitivity₂ (which excludes prophylactic-mastectomy detected BCs) was 100%, whereas sensitivity₂ of mammography and MRI alone was 50% and 100%, respectively. Overall specificity was higher in follow-up rounds (86%) versus first rounds (71%). Regardless of surveillance, 21/65 women developed 35 distinct BCs (median age at first diagnosis, 40 years [range, 24-59]) and 23/65 developed 89 BBLs (median age at first diagnosis, 38 years [range, 15-61]). Surveillance-detected BCs were all T1 and N0, whereas outside surveillance-detected BCs were more often ≥T2 (60%) and N+ (45%) (p < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings show that annual BC surveillance with MRI starting at age 25 years enables detection of early-stage BCs. Performance measures of surveillance and CDR were both high. BBLs were commonly present, underlining the importance of evaluation of all lesions independently.

LAY SUMMARY

Breast cancer surveillance leads to decreased tumor stage and improved survival. Breast cancer surveillance with breast magnetic resonance imaging from age 25 years onward is recommended.

Cost-effectiveness of abbreviated-protocol MRI screening for women with mammographically dense breasts in a national breast cancer screening program

Introduction

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown the potential to improve the screening effectiveness among women with dense breasts. The introduction of fast abbreviated protocols (AP) makes MRI more feasible to be used in a general population. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of AP-MRI in women with dense breasts (heterogeneously/extremely dense) in a population-based screening program.

Methods

A previously validated model (SiMRiSc) was applied, with parameters updated for women with dense breasts. Breast density was assumed to decrease with increased age. The base scenarios included six biennial AP-MRI strategies, with biennial mammography from age 50–74 as reference. Fourteen alternative scenarios were performed by varying screening interval (triennial and quadrennial) and by applying a combined strategy of mammography and AP-MRI. A 3% discount rate for both costs and life years gained (LYG) was applied. Model robustness was evaluated using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

The six biennial AP-MRI strategies ranged from 132 to 562 LYG per 10,000 women, where more frequent application of AP-MRI was related to higher LYG. The optimal strategy was biennial AP-MRI screening from age 50–65 for only women with extremely dense breasts, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of € 18,201/LYG. At a threshold of € 20,000/LYG, the probability that the optimal strategy was cost-effective was 79%.

Conclusion

Population-based biennial breast cancer screening with AP-MRI from age 50–65 for women with extremely dense breasts might be a cost-effective alternative to mammography, but is not an option for women with heterogeneously dense breasts.

•

AP-MRI can be cost-effective for screening women with extremely dense breast.

•

The more frequent the use of AP-MRI, the more life years will be gained.

•

Biennial AP-MRI for women with extremely dense breast up to age 65 is optimal.

Current and Future Directions of Breast MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive exam for detecting breast cancer. The American College of Radiology recommends women with 20% or greater lifetime risk of developing breast cancer be screened annually with MRI. However, other high-risk populations would also benefit. Hartmann et al. reported women with atypical hyperplasia have nearly a 30% incidence of breast cancer at 25-year follow-up. Women with dense breast tissue have up to a 4-fold increased risk of breast cancer when compared to average-risk women; their cancers are more likely to be mammographically occult. Because multiple cohorts of women are at high risk for developing breast cancer, there has been a movement to develop an abbreviated MRI (abMRI) protocol to expand the availability of MRI screening. Studies on abMRI effectiveness have been promising, with Weinstein et al. demonstrating a cancer detection rate of 27.4/1000 in women with dense breasts after a negative digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast MRI is also used to evaluate the extent of disease as part of preoperative assessment in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, and to assess a patient's response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This paper aims to explore the current uses of MRI and propose future indications and directions.

Supplemental Cancer Screening for Women With Dense Breasts: Guidance for Health Care Professionals

Mammography is the standard for breast cancer screening. The sensitivity of mammography in identifying breast cancer, however, is reduced for women with dense breasts. Thirty-eight states have passed laws requiring that all women be notified of breast tissue density results in their mammogram report. The notification includes a statement that differs by state, encouraging women to discuss supplemental screening options with their health care professionals (HCPs). Several supplemental screening tests are available for women with dense breast tissue, but no established guidelines exist to direct HCPs in their recommendation of preferred supplemental screening test. Tailored screening, which takes into consideration the patient's mammographic breast density and lifetime breast cancer risk, can guide breast cancer screening strategies that are more comprehensive. This review describes the benefits and limitations of the various available supplemental screening tests to guide HCPs and patients in choosing the appropriate breast cancer screening.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Based on Breast Density

Mammography remains the only validated screening tool for breast cancer, however, there are limitations to mammography. One of the limitations of mammography is the variable sensitivity based on breast density. Supplemental screening may be considered based on the patient's risk level and breast density. For average-risk women with nondense breasts, the sensitivity of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening is high; additional supplemental screening is not warranted in this population. For average-risk women with dense breasts, given the decreased sensitivity of mammography/DBT, this population may benefit from additional supplemental screening with contrast-enhanced mammography, screening ultrasound (US), breast MRI, or abbreviated breast MRI. In intermediate-risk women, there is emerging evidence suggesting that women in this population may benefit from breast MRI or abbreviated breast MRI. In intermediate-risk women with dense breasts, given the decreased sensitivity of mammography/DBT, this population may benefit from additional supplemental screening with contrast-enhancedmammography or screening US. There is strong evidence supporting screening high-risk women with breast MRI regardless of breast density. Contrast-enhanced mammography, whole breast screening US, or abbreviated breast MRI may be also considered. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Architectural distortion outcome: digital breast tomosynthesis-detected versus digital mammography-detected

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcome for DBT-detected and DM-detected suspicious AD, to evaluate the risk of malignancy and if is affected by the US or MRI imaging correlation.

METHODS

All cases with suspicious AD (ultimately assigned BI-RADS 4 or 5 categories) were retrospectively included. Two radiologists independently reviewed DM and DBT images in two sessions for detection (DM vs. DBT). US and MRI imaging correlation findings were recorded. Pathologic results were compared between DBT-detected and DM-detected AD.

RESULTS

Among 137 detected ADs, 103 (75.2%) were DM-detected, and 34 (24.8%) were only DBT-detected (p = 0.01). The malignancy rate was lower for DBT-detected than DM-detected AD (14.7% vs. 45.6%) (p = 0.01). Malignancy rate was higher with US-positive than US-negative correlation at DM-detected AD (49.4% vs. 27.8%) (p = 0.01). Malignancy rate was not different for DBT-detected AD with (16.7%) or without (12.5%) sonographic correlation. NPV based on radiologists' level of suspicion was high (86.2%-97.2%) but not sufficient enough to forgo biopsy. Of 34 sonographically occult ADs, a positive-MRI correlation was identified in 19 (55.9%) ADs (7 were malignant, 12 were benign). A negative-MRI correlation was identified in 15 (44.1%) ADs; all had a benign outcome (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

DBT-detected AD is less likely to represent malignancy than does DM-detected; however, the risk of malignancy is not low enough to forgo biopsy. MRI-negative correlation in sonographically occult AD was significantly associated with benign outcomes and can avoid unnecessary interventions.

MRI versus Mammography plus Ultrasound in Women at Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk: Study Design and Protocol of the MRIB Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial

In women at high/intermediate lifetime risk of breast cancer (BC-LTR), contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to mammography ± ultrasound (MX ± US) increases sensitivity but decreases specificity. Screening with MRI alone is an alternative and potentially more cost-effective strategy. Here, we describe the study protocol and the characteristics of enrolled patients for MRIB feasibility, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, which aims to compare MRI alone versus MX+US in women at intermediate breast cancer risk (aged 40-59, with a 15-30% BC-LTR and/or extremely dense breasts). Two screening rounds per woman were planned in ten centers experienced in MRI screening, the primary endpoint being the rate of cancers detected in the 2 arms after 5 years of follow-up. From July 2013 to November 2015, 1254 women (mean age 47 years) were enrolled: 624 were assigned to MX+US and 630 to MRI. Most of them were aged below 50 (72%) and premenopausal (45%), and 52% used oral contraceptives. Among postmenopausal women, 15% had used hormone replacement therapy. Breast and/or ovarian cancer in mothers and/or sisters were reported by 37% of enrolled women, 79% had extremely dense breasts, and 41% had a 15-30% BC-LTR. The distribution of the major determinants of breast cancer risk profiles (breast density and family history of breast and ovarian cancer) of enrolled women varied across centers.

What's Hot in Breast MRI

Several articles in the literature have demonstrated a promising role for breast MRI techniques that are more economic in total exam time than others when used as supplement to mammography for detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. There are many technical factors that must be considered in the shortened breast MRI protocols to cut down time of standard ones, including using optimal fat suppression, gadolinium-chelates intravascular contrast administrations for dynamic imaging with post processing subtractions and maximum intensity projections (MIP) high spatial and temporal resolution among others. Multiparametric breast MRI that includes both gadolinium-dependent, i.e., dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-MRI) and gadolinium-free techniques, i.e., diffusion-weighted/diffusion-tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DWI/DTI) are shown by several investigators that can provide extremely high sensitivity and specificity for detection of breast cancer. This article provides an overview of the proven indications for breast MRI including breast cancer screening for higher than average risk, determining chemotherapy induced tumor response, detecting residual tumor after incomplete surgical excision, detecting occult cancer in patients presenting with axillary node metastasis, detecting residual tumor after incomplete breast cancer surgical excision, detecting cancer when results of conventional imaging are equivocal, as well patients suspicious of having breast implant rupture. Despite having the highest sensitivity for breast cancer detection, there are pitfalls, however, secondary to false positive and false negative contrast enhancement and contrast-free MRI techniques. Awareness of the strengths and limitations of different approaches to obtain state of the art MR images of the breast will facilitate the work-up of patients with suspicious breast lesions.

The Distinct Performances of Ultrasound, Mammograms, and MRI in Detecting Breast Cancer in Patients With Germline Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes

A proportion of up to 10% of breast cancer resulted from hereditary germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in cancer predisposition genes (CPGs), which been demonstrated distinct clinical features and imaging manifestations. However, the performance of imaging modalities for breast cancer surveillance in CPG mutation-carriers is still unclear, especially in Asian women. A population of 3002 breast cancer patients who received germline genetic testing of CPGs was enrolled from three hospitals in China. In total, 343 (11.6%) patients were found to harbor GPVs in CPGs, including 137 (4.6%) in BRCA1 and 135 (4.6%) in BRCA2. We compared the performances of ultrasound, mammograms, MRI, and the combining strategies in CPG mutation carriers and non-carriers. As a result, the ultrasound showed a higher detection rate compared with mammograms regardless of the mutation status. However, its detection rate was lower in CPG mutation carriers than in non-carriers (93.2% vs 98.0%, P=2.1×10-4), especially in the BRCA1 mutation carriers (90.9% vs 98.0%, P=2.0×10-4). MRI presented the highest sensitivity (98.5%) and the lowest underestimation rate (14.5%) in CPG mutation carriers among ultrasound, mammograms, and their combination. Supplemental ultrasound or mammograms would add no significant value to MRI for detecting breast cancer (P>0.05). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the family or personal cancer history could not replace the mutation status as the impact factor for the false-negative result and underestimation. In summary, clinicians and radiologists should be aware of the atypical imaging presentation of breast cancer in patients with GPVs in CPGs.

A systematic review of recommendations on screening strategies for breast cancer due to hereditary predisposition: Who, When, and How?

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is a global health problem that cannot be underestimated. Many studies have shown that breast cancer is related to pathogenic mutations in hereditary predisposition genes. Clinical practice guidelines play a vital role in guiding the selection of breast cancer screening. Little is known about the quality and consistency of guidelines' recommendations and their changes over these years.

METHODS

We reviewed the existing screening guidelines for genetic susceptibility to breast cancer and assessed the methodological quality, and summarized the recommendations to aid clinicians to make decisions. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and guideline-specific databases, aiming to find the guidelines of breast cancer due to hereditary predisposition. The necessary information was exacted by Excel. We also summarized different evidence grading systems. The qualities of the guidelines were assessed by the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

RESULTS

A total of 54 recommendations from 13 guidelines were extracted. Generally speaking, the recommendations were consistent, mainly focusing on mammography and MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations differ in details. Moreover, different guidelines are based on different grading systems, and some guidelines are not divided for age limits, which may limit the promotion and implementation of the guidelines. It is suggested that improvement can be made in this regard in the future.

Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Screening for Intermediate-Risk Women With a History of Lobular Neoplasia

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to assess to the role of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as a screening tool in women at intermediate risk for developing breast cancer due to a personal history of lobular neoplasia without additional risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this institutional review board-approved, observational, retrospective study, we reviewed our radiology department database to identify patients with a personal history of breast biopsy yielding lobular neoplasia who underwent screening CEDM at our institution between December 2012 and February 2019. A total of 132 women who underwent 306 CEDM examinations were included. All CEDM examinations were interpreted by dedicated breast imaging radiologists in conjunction with a review of the patient's clinical history and available prior breast imaging. In statistical analysis, sensitivity, specificity, NPV, positive likelihood ratio, and accuracy of CEDM in detecting cancer were determined, with pathology or 12-month imaging follow-up serving as the reference standard. RESULTS. CEDM detected cancer in six patients and showed an overall sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 88% (95% CI, 84-92%), NPV of 100%, and accuracy of 88% (95% CI, 84-92%). The positive likelihood ratio of 8.33 suggested that CEDM findings are 8.3 times more likely to be positive in an individual with breast cancer when compared with an individual without the disease. CONCLUSION. CEDM shows promise as a breast cancer screening examination in patients with a personal history of lobular neoplasia. Continued investigation with a larger patient population is needed to determine the true sensitivity and positive predictive value of CEDM for these patients.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Screening of Breast Cancer

Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging is the most sensitive modality for breast cancer detection but is currently limited to screening women at high risk due to limited specificity and test accessibility. However, specificity of MR imaging improves with successive rounds of screening, and abbreviated approaches have the potential to increase access and decrease cost. There is growing evidence to support supplemental MR imaging in moderate-risk women, and current guidelines continue to evolve. Functional imaging has the potential to maximize survival benefit of screening. Leveraging MR imaging as a possible primary screening tool is therefore also being investigated in average-risk women.

Overview in Breast Cancer Screening in Lebanon

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women and men combined, and it is the second cause of cancer deaths in women after lung cancer. In Lebanon, the same epidemiological profile applies where BC is the leading cancer among Lebanese females, representing 38.2% of all cancer cases. As per the Center for Disease Control, there was a decline in BC mortality rate from 2003 to 2012 reflecting the adoption of national mammographic screening as the gold standard for BC detection by Western countries. The aim of this review study is to summarize current recommendations for BC screening and the available modalities for detecting BC in different countries, particularly in Lebanon. It also aims at exploring the impact of screening campaigns on BC early stage diagnosis in Lebanon. Despite the considerable debates whether screening mammograms provides more harm than benefits, screening awareness should be stressed since its benefits far outweigh its risks. In fact, the majority of BC mortality cases in Western countries are non-preventable by the use of screening mammograms alone. As such, Lebanon adopted a public focus on education and awareness campaigns encouraging early BC screening. Several studies showed the impact of early detection that is reflected by an increase in early stage disease and a decrease in more aggressive stages. Further studies should shed the light on the effect of awareness campaigns on early breast cancer diagnosis and clinical down staging at a national scope; therefore, having readily available data on pre- and post-adoption of screening campaigns is crucial for analyzing trends in mortality of breast cancer origin and reduction in advanced stages diseases. There is still room for future studies evaluating post-campaigns knowledge, attitudes, and practices of women having participated, emphasizing on the barriers refraining Lebanese women to contribute in BC screening campaigns.

Updated Breast Cancer Surveillance Recommendations for Female Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer From the International Guideline Harmonization Group

PURPOSE

As new evidence is available, the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group has updated breast cancer surveillance recommendations for female survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer.

METHODS

We used evidence-based methods to apply new knowledge in refining the international harmonized recommendations developed in 2013. The guideline panel updated the systematic literature review, developed evidence summaries, appraised the evidence, and updated recommendations on the basis of evidence, clinical judgement, and consideration of benefits versus the harms of the surveillance interventions while attaining flexibility in implementation across different health care systems. The GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework was used to translate evidence to recommendations. A survivor information form was developed to counsel survivors about the potential harms and benefits of surveillance.

RESULTS

The literature update identified new study findings related to the effects of prescribed moderate-dose chest radiation (10 to 19 Gy), radiation dose-volume, anthracyclines and alkylating agents in non-chest irradiated survivors, and the effects of ovarian function on breast cancer risk. Moreover, new data from prospective investigations were available regarding the performance metrics of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging among survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma. Modified recommendations include the performance of mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging for survivors treated with 10 Gy or greater chest radiation (strong recommendation) and upper abdominal radiation exposing breast tissue at a young age (moderate recommendation) at least annually up to age 60 years. As a result of inconsistent evidence, no recommendation could be formulated for routine breast cancer surveillance for survivors treated with any type of anthracyclines in the absence of chest radiation.

CONCLUSION

The newly identified evidence prompted significant change to the recommendations formulated in 2013 related to moderate-dose chest radiation and anthracycline exposure as well as breast cancer surveillance modality.

Supplemental Screening for Patients at Intermediate and High Risk for Breast Cancer

The sensitivity of mammography is more limited in patients with dense breasts and some patients at higher risk for breast cancer. Patients with intermediate or high risk for breast cancer may begin screening earlier and benefit from supplemental screening techniques beyond standard 2-dimensional mammography. A patient's individual risk factors for developing breast cancer, their breast density, and the evidence supporting specific modalities for a given clinical scenario help to determine the need for supplemental screening and the modality chosen. Additional factors include the availability of supplemental screening techniques at an individual institution, cost, insurance coverage, and state-specific breast density legislation.

Breast cancer screening for women at high risk: review of current guidelines from leading specialty societies

The purpose of this article is to overview the existing breast cancer screening guidelines for women at high risk from world-leading specialty societies. Accumulation of evidence and development of accessible genetic testing strategies have changed the idea of breast cancer screening for high-risk women. Personalized tailor-made screening adjusted for risk factors has been conducted in accordance with guidelines. The use of imaging modalities other than mammography including contrast-enhanced MRI and other various strategies for improving screening are discussed. The present review also mentions the existing challenges in high-risk screening and the latest information based on two large-scale studies.

Screening in patients with increased risk of breast cancer (part 2). Where are we now? Actual MRI screening controversies

For women with a high risk of breast cancer, early detection plays an important role. Due to the high incidence of breast cancer, and at a younger age than in the general population, screening begins earlier, and there is considerable evidence that magnetic resonance is the most sensitive diagnostic tool, and the principal American and European guidelines agree on the recommendation to perform annual magnetic resonance (with supplemental annual mammography) as an optimal mode of screening. In addition to the absence of current consensus on which patients should be included in the recommendation for magnetic resonance screening (widely discussed in the introduction of part 1 of this work), there are other aspects that are different between guidelines, that are not specified, or that are susceptible to change based on the evidence of several years of experience, that we have called «controversies», such as the age to begin screening, the possible advisability of using a different strategy in different subgroups, performing alternate versus synchronous magnetic resonance and mammography, the age at which to terminate the two techniques, or how to follow up after risk reduction surgery.The aim of the second part of the paper is, by reviewing the literature, to provide an update in relation to some of the main «controversies» in high risk screening with magnetic resonance. And finally, based on all this, to propose a possible model of optimal and updated screening protocol.

Solving the preoperative breast MRI conundrum: design and protocol of the MIPA study

Despite its high diagnostic performance, the use of breast MRI in the preoperative setting is controversial. It has the potential for personalized surgical management in breast cancer patients, but two of three randomized controlled trials did not show results in favor of its introduction for assessing the disease extent before surgery. Meta-analyses showed a higher mastectomy rate in women undergoing preoperative MRI compared to those who do not. Nevertheless, preoperative breast MRI is increasingly used and a survey from the American Society of Breast Surgeons showed that 41% of respondents ask for it in daily practice. In this context, a large-scale observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA study) was proposed under the guidance of the European Network for the Assessment of Imaging in Medicine (EuroAIM). The aims were (1) to prospectively and systematically collect data on consecutive women with a newly diagnosed breast cancer, not candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, who are offered or not offered breast MRI before surgery according to local practice; (2) to compare these two groups in terms of surgical and clinical endpoints, adjusting for covariates. The underlying hypotheses are that MRI does not cause additional mastectomies compared to conventional imaging, while reducing the reoperation rate in all or in subgroups of patients. Ninety-six centers applied to a web-based call; 36 were initially selected based on volume and quality standards; 27 were active for enrollment. On November 2018, the target of 7000 enrolled patients was reached. The MIPA study is presently at the analytic phase. Key Points • Breast MRI has a high diagnostic performance but its utility in the preoperative setting is controversial. • A large-scale observational multicenter prospective study was launched to compare women receiving with those not receiving preoperative MRI. • Twenty-seven centers enrolled more than 7000 patients. The study is presently at the analytic phase.

Breast Cancer Screening Practices for High-Risk Women: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Primary Care Providers

Background: Little literature exists on primary care providers' knowledge and preferences toward breast cancer screening for high-risk women. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey of primary care providers in Minnesota was conducted in 2016. The primary aim was to determine the breast cancer screening practices of primary care providers for women at high risk for breast cancer. A multipart questionnaire focused on breast cancer screening practices for high-risk women and perceived risks/benefits of breast cancer screening was administered. Statistical analyses, included descriptive statistics and tests of differences in screening practices and knowledge across key professional characteristics, were conducted. Results: Eight hundred five primary care providers completed the survey (7.7% response). Participants were predominantly female (72.2%); 43.9% were physicians, 11.4% physician assistants, and 44.8% advanced practice registered nurses. One-quarter of providers recommended mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for high-risk women ages 40-49 years. There were no differences in breast MRI recommendations based on years of experience or practice setting. In high-risk women with prior chest radiation and an increased risk of breast cancer, for whom guidelines recommend mammography and MRI, 75.0% of providers recommended mammography, but only 44.3% recommended breast MRI. Recent continuing education on breast cancer screening was associated with providers being more comfortable giving high-risk screening recommendations (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Most primary care providers believe mammography is helpful in women at high risk for breast cancer. Less than half of practitioners, however, recommend breast MRI to screen women at high risk for breast cancer, despite guidelines promoting the use of breast MRI. Increased provider education is warranted.

The supplemental value of mammographic screening over breast MRI alone in BRCA2 mutation carriers

Purpose

BRCA2 mutation carriers are offered annual breast screening with MRI and mammography. The aim of this study was to investigate the supplemental value of mammographic screening over MRI screening alone.

Methods

In this multicenter study, proven BRCA2 mutation carriers, who developed breast cancer during screening using both digital mammography and state-of-art breast MRI, were identified. Clinical data were reviewed to classify cases in screen-detected and interval cancers. Imaging was reviewed to assess the diagnostic value of mammography and MRI, using the Breast Imaging and Data System (BI-RADS) classification allocated at the time of diagnosis.

Results

From January 2003 till March 2019, 62 invasive breast cancers and 23 ductal carcinomas in situ were diagnosed in 83 BRCA2 mutation carriers under surveillance. Overall screening sensitivity was 95.2% (81/85). Four interval cancers occurred (4.7% (4/85)). MRI detected 73 of 85 breast cancers (sensitivity 85.8%) and 42 mammography (sensitivity 49.9%) (p < 0.001).

Eight mammography-only lesions occurred. In 1 of 17 women younger than 40 years, a 6-mm grade 3 DCIS, retrospectively visible on MRI, was detected with mammography only in a 38-year-old woman. The other 7 mammography-only breast cancers were diagnosed in women aged 50 years and older, increasing sensitivity in this subgroup from 79.5% (35/44) to 95.5% (42/44) (p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusions

In BRCA2 mutation carriers younger than 40 years, the benefit of mammographic screening over MRI was very small. In carriers of 50 years and older, mammographic screening contributed significantly. Hence, we propose to postpone mammographic screening in BRCA2 mutation carriers to at least age 40.

Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening

IMPORTANCE

Improved screening methods for women with dense breasts are needed because of their increased risk of breast cancer and of failed early diagnosis by screening mammography.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the screening performance of abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study with longitudinal follow-up at 48 academic, community hospital, and private practice sites in the United States and Germany, conducted between December 2016 and November 2017 among average-risk women aged 40 to 75 years with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts undergoing routine screening. Follow-up ascertainment of cancer diagnoses was complete through September 12, 2019.

EXPOSURES

All women underwent screening by both DBT and abbreviated breast MRI, performed in randomized order and read independently to avoid interpretation bias.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the invasive cancer detection rate. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, additional imaging recommendation rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy, using invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to define a positive reference standard. All outcomes are reported at the participant level. Pathology of core or surgical biopsy was the reference standard for cancer detection rate and PPV; interval cancers reported until the next annual screen were included in the reference standard for sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

Among 1516 enrolled women, 1444 (median age, 54 [range, 40-75] years) completed both examinations and were included in the analysis. The reference standard was positive for invasive cancer with or without DCIS in 17 women and for DCIS alone in another 6. No interval cancers were observed during follow-up. Abbreviated breast MRI detected all 17 women with invasive cancer and 5 of 6 women with DCIS. Digital breast tomosynthesis detected 7 of 17 women with invasive cancer and 2 of 6 women with DCIS. The invasive cancer detection rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 7.4-18.8) per 1000 women for abbreviated breast MRI vs 4.8 (95% CI, 2.4-10.0) per 1000 women for DBT, a difference of 7 (95% CI, 2.2-11.6) per 1000 women (exact McNemar P = .002). For detection of invasive cancer and DCIS, sensitivity was 95.7% (95% CI, 79.0%-99.2%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 39.1% (95% CI, 22.2%-59.2%) with DBT (P = .001) and specificity was 86.7% (95% CI, 84.8%-88.4%) vs 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.1%), respectively (P < .001). The additional imaging recommendation rate was 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-9.0%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 10.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-11.8%) with DBT (P = .02) and the PPV was 19.6% (95% CI, 13.2%-28.2%) vs 31.0% (95% CI, 17.0%-49.7%), respectively (P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among women with dense breasts undergoing screening, abbreviated breast MRI, compared with DBT, was associated with a significantly higher rate of invasive breast cancer detection. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between screening methods and clinical outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02933489.

Can breast MRI accurately exclude malignancy in mammographic architectural distortion?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of problem-solving breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in excluding malignancy in a cohort of patients diagnosed with mammographic architectural distortion (MAD).

METHODS

The Institutional Review Board approved the study. Imaging database with 40,245 breast MRIs done between January 2008 and September 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. The study included all exams considered problem-solving MRI for MAD. Two radiologists reviewed the imaging data. Outcome was determined by the pathology results of biopsy/surgical excision or at least 1 year of clinical and radiological follow-up. Predictors for malignancy were examined, and appropriate statistical tests were applied.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-five patients (median age 53 years) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and formed the study cohort. No cancers were diagnosed in 106 patients with a negative MRI. Out of 69 women with positive MRI findings, 48 (70%) had benign outcome defined either by pathology result or by negative follow-up, and 21 (30%) yielded malignancy. Malignancy was significantly associated with positive MRI (p < 0.001) and older age (p = 0.014). Falsely positive MRIs were frequently found in women with radial scars. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and overall accuracy of breast MRI were 100% (95% CI 84 to 100%), 68% (CI 61 to 76%), 100% (CI 95 to 100%), 30% (CI 26 to 36%), and 73% (95% CI 66-79), respectively.

CONCLUSION

A negative breast MRI in patients with MAD was reliable in excluding malignancy in this cohort and may have a role as a precision medicine tool for avoiding unnecessary interventions.

KEY POINTS

• MRI shows a high negative predictive value in MAD cases. • MRI displays low accuracy in differentiating malignancy from RS. • MRI is a reliable non-invasive method to exclude malignancy in women with mammographic architectural distortion, potentially avoiding unnecessary biopsies and surgeries.

Abbreviated Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for Breast Cancer Screening: Rationale, Concept, and Transfer to Clinical Practice

Given the increasing understanding of cancer as a heterogeneous group of diseases, detection methods should offer a sensitivity profile that ensures perfect sensitivity for biologically important cancers while screening out self-limiting pseudocancers. However, mammographic screening is biased toward detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and slowly growing cancers-and thus frequently fails to detect biologically aggressive cancers. This explains the persistently high rates of interval cancers and high rates of breast cancer mortality observed in spite of decades of mammographic screening. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in contrast, has a sensitivity profile that matches clinical needs. Conventional MRI is not suitable for population-wide screening due to high cost, limited tolerability, and lack of availability. We introduced abbreviated MRI in 2014. Abbreviated MRI will change the way MRI is used in clinical medicine. This article describes the rationale to use MRI in general, and abbreviated MRI in particular, for breast cancer screening.

Breast Cancer Screening in High-Risk Men: A 12-year Longitudinal Observational Study of Male Breast Imaging Utilization and Outcomes

Background Male breast cancer incidence is rising. There may be a potential role in selective screening in men at elevated risk for breast cancer, but the effectiveness of such screening remains unexplored. Purpose To evaluate patterns of male breast imaging utilization, to determine high-risk screening outcomes, and to delineate risk factors associated with cancer diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study reviewed consecutive male breast imaging examinations over a 12-year period (between 2005-2017). Examination indications, biopsy recommendations, and pathologic results were correlated with patient characteristics. Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney test, Spearman correlation, and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 1869 men (median age, 55 years; range, 18-96 years) underwent 2052 examinations yielding 2304 breast lesions and resulting in 149 (6.5%) biopsies in 133 men; 41 (27.5%) were malignant and 108 (72.5%) were benign. There were 1781 (86.8%) diagnostic and 271 (13.2%) screening examinations. All men undergoing screening had personal or family history of breast cancer and/or genetic mutations. There was a significant increase in the number of examinations in men relative to the number of examinations in women over time (Spearman correlation, r = 0.85; P < .001). Five node-negative cancers resulted from screening mammography, yielding a cancer detection rate of 18 per 1000 examinations (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7, 41), with cancers diagnosed on average after 4 person-years of screening (range, 1-10 person-years). Mammographic screening sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of biopsy were 100% (95% CI: 50%, 100%), 95.0% (95% CI: 93.1%, 98%), and 50% (95% CI: 22.2%, 77.8%). Older age (P < .001), Ashkenazi descent (P < .001), genetic mutations (P = .006), personal history (P < .001), and first-degree family history (P = .03) were associated with breast cancer. Non-first-degree family history was not associated with cancer (P = .09). Conclusion There is potential benefit in screening men at high risk for developing breast cancer. Such screening may have increased over time. © RSNA, 2019.

Evaluation of Palpable Breast Abnormalities

A palpable breast abnormality is one of the most common presenting clinical breast complaints. Although the majority of palpable abnormalities are benign, they are among the most common presenting symptoms of breast cancer, and those breast cancers detected symptomatically tend to have poorer prognosis than their screen-detected counterparts. Clinical breast examination is a vital part of the workup of palpable abnormalities. However, as physical exam features of most masses are not reliable for categorization of malignancy, imaging evaluation is necessary. Choice of imaging modality, which includes diagnostic mammography and breast ultrasound, is dependent upon patient age. Ultrasound is the primary imaging modality for evaluation of palpable masses in women younger than 30 years of age because of its high negative predictive value and sensitivity and lack of ionizing radiation. For women aged 30-39 years, ultrasound or mammography can be performed as the initial imaging evaluation, with ultrasound maintaining a high sensitivity in women younger than 40 years old. Mammography, often followed by ultrasound, is the recommended imaging evaluation sequence for women aged 40 and older. Utilization of advanced imaging modalities for evaluation of the palpable area of concern is not supported by evidence.

NF1 Patients Receiving Breast Cancer Screening: Insights from The Ontario High Risk Breast Screening Program

Neurofibromatosis Type I (NF1) is caused by variants in neurofibromin (NF1). NF1 predisposes to a variety of benign and malignant tumor types, including breast cancer. Women with NF1 <50 years of age possess an up to five-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer compared with the general population. Impaired emotional functioning is reported as a comorbidity that may influence the participation of NF1 patients in regular clinical surveillance despite their increased risk of breast and other cancers. Despite emphasis on breast cancer surveillance in women with NF1, the uptake and feasibility of high-risk screening programs in this population remains unclear. A retrospective chart review between 2014–2018 of female NF1 patients seen at the Elizabeth Raab Neurofibromatosis Clinic (ERNC) in Ontario was conducted to examine the uptake of high-risk breast cancer screening, radiologic findings, and breast cancer characteristics. 61 women with pathogenic variants in NF1 enrolled in the high-risk Ontario breast screening program (HR-OBSP); 95% completed at least one high-risk breast screening modality, and four were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Our findings support the integration of a formal breast screening programs in clinical management of NF1 patients.

BRCA Mutation Carriers: Breast and Ovarian Cancer Screening Guidelines and Imaging Considerations

Patients who carry the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations have an underlying genetic predisposition for breast and ovarian cancers. These deleterious genetic mutations are the most common genes implicated in hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. This monograph summarizes the evidence behind current screening recommendations, reviews imaging protocols specific to this patient population, and illustrates some of the imaging nuances of breast and ovarian cancers in this clinical setting.

Breast density implications and supplemental screening

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been widely implemented in place of 2D mammography, although it is less effective in women with extremely dense breasts. Breast ultrasound detects additional early-stage, invasive breast cancers when combined with mammography; however, its relevant limitations, including the shortage of trained operators, operator dependence and small field of view, have limited its widespread implementation. Automated breast sonography (ABS) is a promising technique but the time to interpret and false-positive rates need to be improved. Supplemental screening with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high-risk women reduces late-stage disease; abbreviated MRI protocols may reduce cost and increase accessibility to women of average risk with dense breasts. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and molecular breast imaging improve cancer detection but require further validation for screening and direct biopsy guidance should be implemented for any screening modality. This article reviews the status of screening women with dense breasts. KEY POINTS: • The sensitivity of mammography is reduced in women with dense breasts. Supplemental screening with US detects early-stage, invasive breast cancers. • Tomosynthesis reduces recall rate and increases cancer detection rate but is less effective in women with extremely dense breasts. • Screening MRI improves early diagnosis of breast cancer more than ultrasound and is currently recommended for women at high risk. Risk assessment is needed, to include breast density, to ascertain who should start early annual MRI screening.

Intensive Surveillance with Biannual Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Downstages Breast Cancer in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers

PURPOSE

To establish a cohort of high-risk women undergoing intensive surveillance for breast cancer.Experimental Design: We performed dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI every 6 months in conjunction with annual mammography (MG). Eligible participants had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk ≥20% and/or tested positive for a pathogenic mutation in a known breast cancer susceptibility gene.

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2016, we prospectively enrolled 295 women, including 157 mutation carriers (75 BRCA1, 61 BRCA2); participants' mean age at entry was 43.3 years. Seventeen cancers were later diagnosed: 4 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 13 early-stage invasive breast cancers. Fifteen cancers occurred in mutation carriers (11 BRCA1, 3 BRCA2, 1 CDH1). Median size of the invasive cancers was 0.61 cm. No patients had lymph node metastasis at time of diagnosis, and no interval invasive cancers occurred. The sensitivity of biannual MRI alone was 88.2% and annual MG plus biannual MRI was 94.1%. The cancer detection rate of biannual MRI alone was 0.7% per 100 screening episodes, which is similar to the cancer detection rate of 0.7% per 100 screening episodes for annual MG plus biannual MRI. The number of recalls and biopsies needed to detect one cancer by biannual MRI were 2.8 and 1.7 in BRCA1 carriers, 12.0 and 8.0 in BRCA2 carriers, and 11.7 and 5.0 in non-BRCA1/2 carriers, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Biannual MRI performed well for early detection of invasive breast cancer in genomically stratified high-risk women. No benefit was associated with annual MG screening plus biannual MRI screening.See related commentary by Kuhl and Schrading, p. 1693.

Contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer screening

Multiple studies in the first decade of the 21^st century have established contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening modality for women with a hereditary or familial increased risk for the development of breast cancer. In recent studies, in women with various risk profiles, the sensitivity ranges between 81% and 100%, which is approximately twice as high as the sensitivity of mammography. The specificity increases in follow-up rounds to around 97%, with positive predictive values for biopsy in the same range as for mammography. MRI preferentially detects the more aggressive/invasive types of breast cancer, but has a higher sensitivity than mammography for any type of cancer. This performance implies that in women screened with breast MRI, all other examinations must be regarded as supplemental. Mammography may yield ~5% additional cancers, mostly ductal carcinoma in situ, while slightly decreasing specificity and increasing the costs. Ultrasound has no supplemental value when MRI is used. Evidence is mounting that in other groups of women the performance of MRI is likewise superior to more conventional screening techniques. Particularly in women with a personal history of breast cancer, the gain seems to be high, but also in women with a biopsy history of lobular carcinoma in situ and even women at average risk, similar results are reported. Initial outcome studies show that breast MRI detects cancer earlier, which induces a stage-shift increasing the survival benefit of screening. Cost-effectiveness is still an issue, particularly for women at lower risk. Since costs of the MRI scan itself are a driving factor, efforts to reduce these costs are essential. The use of abbreviated MRI protocols may enable more widespread use of breast MRI for screening. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:377-390.

More Is More: Semiannual Breast MRI Screening in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers

Although annual MRI screening has improved early diagnosis of hereditary breast cancer, fast growth rates of BRCA1-associated cancers can still lead to interval cancers and/or node-positive disease. Using MRI with shorter screening intervals helps to effectively avoid both interval cancers and node-positive stages, whereas there is no role for mammography in these women.See related article by Guindalini et al., p. 1786.

Improving Surveillance of Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Injuries Repaired with Thoracic Endovascular Graft Placement

The optimal follow-up protocol for patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for traumatic thoracic aortic injury remains unclear. The objective of this study was to assess follow-up patterns in such patients and present an approach to improve long-term follow-up in this cohort. The University of Louisville Trauma Registry was queried for patients who underwent TEVAR for traumatic thoracic aortic injuries between 2006 and 2016. Demographic, injury-specific, perioperative, and outcome measures were recorded for each patient. Follow-up evaluation and duration of follow-up were captured. Follow-up imaging was reviewed for any evidence of vascular complications. A total of 56 patients underwent TEVAR for traumatic thoracic aortic injury. Median age was 48 (range 18–86). Injury mechanism was largely blunt trauma (55 (98%)). Median injury severity score was 34 (range 17–43). Median length of stay was 12.5 days (range 1–40 days), and 51 patients (91%) survived to discharge. Of these, 30 (54%) made at least one follow-up appointment, and 21 of those 30 (70%) received a follow-up CT scan. Median time to last follow-up was one month (range 0–48 months), with 12 patients (21%) having follow-up beyond two months. No patients demonstrated any evidence of vascular complications on imaging at last follow-up. Despite the increased use of TEVAR to treat traumatic aortic injuries, limited follow-up data exist to predict the long-term outcomes of such interventions. Development of statewide or regional databases may help better track outcomes and identify late complications.